By Stan Gudmundson
Peterson, MN
The Catholic Church has a “devil’s advocate.” His job is to investigate accounts of miracles and rebut them. If he can.
There is no counterpart to a devil’s advocate in today’s “climate change” research. There is virtually no way any researcher could get any federal funding, or little other kind either, to investigate counter global cooling/warming change phenomenon. Consequently, there is absolutely no balance in “research” being done today. One would think that the climate change mob would be interested in examining all the facts and possibilities. That these folks are all singing from the same sheet of music results in a single note, tone-deaf monotone. The result? More politics than credible science.
A sign I pass almost every day reads “Support Farmers Tackling the Climate Crisis.” Not sure what that means since an increase in CO2 levels has helped in “greening” the earth. Moreover, that CO2 increase is helping farmers produce more. University and college Ag departments confirm that. And CO2 is not a pollutant.
If the earth were warming, there would be more land available for agriculture as warming would allow it to move further north. Then, there would be more crops produced. Not a bad thing.
Currently, there are upwards of 60 different climate models being used to ‘investigate’ climate change. With increasing sophistication, one would expect these models to provide similar conclusions. And that these conclusions would increasingly agree. But that ain’t happening. These results differ more and more. Confidence levels in their results should decrease also. Obviously.
The major problem with climate models? They are too crude. Over land, most use about “1 million 100km by 100 km squares (62 miles by 62 miles) layered on top of each other and around 100 million 10km by 10km squares (6.2 miles by 6.2 miles) over the ocean.” Current technology does not allow these squares to be smaller as it takes two months to run a computer simulation today. Apparently.
As Nature magazine recently put it, “The problem is that ‘many important [climate] phenomena occur on scales smaller than the 100 sq. km… grid size, (such as mountains, clouds, and thunderstorms).’” And “Users beware: a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence.”
Moreover, none of these computer models can predict the past. Until they can do that, they cannot be used to forecast the future climate of the earth with any degree of confidence. Again, as the Nature article put it, “Numerous studies have found that these high-sensitivity models do a poor job of reproducing historical temperatures over time and in simulating the climates of the distant past.”
I’ll start to pay closer attention to these things when 1) their results start to agree with each other and 2) when they can accurately depict the past.
I’m also still troubled by research fraud and failure to report all the facts. For example, Michael Mann tried to erase the cooling effect of the Middle Ages “Little Ice Age” with a bogus “hockey stick” that eliminated it.
Also, when the ozone hole over the south pole became larger, there was also a corresponding thickening of the ozone layer over the south Atlantic. They didn’t tell us that did they?
I once knew every NASA pilot who flew those TR-1 (U-2) ozone monitoring missions over the south pole. That’s what they told me. These are just two of many examples.
If there were climate change “devil’s advocates” these kinds of things likely wouldn’t happen. Consequently, we would have much greater confidence in the research being done.
Until it is all above board and honest, when funding is made available for the whole range of climate research, and until we can trust it, then include me out in believing in that faith.
Another problem facing those considering being “devil’s advocates?” They would likely become campus outcasts. And tenure? Forget it.
Finally, in southeast Minnesota, July is usually the hottest, most humid, and the most miserable month of the year. But temperatures and humidity this past July were mostly wonderful. Happens rarely but it happens. Global cooling maybe?
Anonymous says
Since Stan has local roots in Southeastern Minnesota, many of us know when he graduated from high school, and that, if he survives to the same age as did his dad, he will likely be around in 2030, but not so by 2035. If his recommendations are off the mark, others who are younger will pay the price, not him.
Online sources indicate that Stan has contributed to the Republican party and/or Republican candidates during multiple election years, so you can make your own determination as to whether he is speaking from a place of political neutrality.
That said, if you prefer to lurk near intersection between libertarianism and Republicanism, then Stan just might be your guy.
Stan cites Nature magazine and Patrick Moore as reputable sources. I’d encourage you to read the Wikipedia articles for both. In addition to those articles, you may wish to consider the following…
Nature magazine advertises a subscription rate on their website of $29.99/month or $199/year. With that, you can read articles, with titles such as, “Interfaces boost response to electric fields in layered oxides”, “Hybrid laser-trapping technique lights the way for neutral atoms” or “Fluorescence limitations overcome by engineering light–matter interactions.” Read this stuff and just think of the lively discussions you can lead with your friends during morning coffee at the local diner.
Nature magazine has been subject to numerous controversies during recent years and Moore has served as a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry, has supported clearcutting of forests, has argued that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial (despite its current level, which is the highest in recorded human history), and that glyphosphate, the active ingredient in Roundup is safe to drink, although when offered the opportunity on the air, refused, stating “I’m not an idiot…I’m not stupid.” So, if you want to launch as polluting industry, and are willing to pay him enough money, he just might be the snake oil salesperson of your dreams.
But what about climate change in Minnesota?
This article published by Minnesota Public Radio News in 2015 is quite instructive: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/02/climate-change-primer
This 2019 article published by MplsStPaul magazine in 2019 is most enlightening: https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/climate-change-minnesota/
The content of this report by the Minnesota House of Representatives earlier this year pretty much echoes the preceding, although perhaps in a slightly less interesting format: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/SessionDaily/Story/17399
So what are the worst possible outcomes if we ignore Stan’s advice and proceed with measures to at least slow the climate crisis? Cleaner air and water; less dependence upon unstable, autocratic dictatorships around the world for polluting fuel sources; and the bonus of diverting ourselves away from a finite, depletable source of energy to one that is certain to be sustainable.
And what if we follow his advice, and discover, perhaps long after he’s gone, that he was mistaken? Believe me – you do not want to know. The movie starring Viggo Mortensen, telling the story in Cormac McCarthy’s unforgettable novel, “The Road”, is probably a lite version of what we could anticipate. Sadly, such a world could potentially seem mild comparison with the reality that could ensue.
Can we afford not to take worst case scenarios into account? If we never did so, none of us would ever dream of carrying insurance on our vehicles, health, homes or lives.
We might do well to carefully ponder these long-ago words of wisdom…
“Teach your children what we have taught ours – that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” – Chief Sealth
Anonymous says
I wouldn’t worry about getting tenure at a respected university.
I suspect Fox News would hire you.
Dmitri Morozov says
Tell me you don’t know anything about science without telling me you don’t know anything about science….
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Stan,
What was your primary source for this article?
Thanks
Stanley J Gudmundson says
Nature magazine. But there is more to consider. For example, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace had this to say about that organization. “Greenpeace was .’highjacked’ by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. Political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization,,,They are primarily focused on creating narratives that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money…campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic etc. are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy.”
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Stan,
I would very much love to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I can no longer do so in good conscience. You are purposefully misleading people, trying to get readers to believe your source was this source here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2
But this not the case, and the two of us know it. Your real source is far more likely to be Steven Hayward’s article from May 17, of this year. “Time to Ditch Climate Models” https://the-pipeline.org/time-to-ditch-climate-models/
How do I presume this?
Nature does not say: “The problem is that ‘many important [climate] phenomena occur on scales smaller than the 100 sq. km… grid size, (such as mountains, clouds, and thunderstorms).’”
It’s a quotation from Hayward’s article referencing Steven Koonin’s book: “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters.”
So, my next question is… Why lie about it? What purpose do you have in wanting people to believe something that isn’t true?
Cheers